CONST. RAMBIR SINGH vs GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~87 & 88 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10894/2019 CONST. RAMBIR SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Adv. versus GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Farman Ali, Sr. PC with Ms. Usha Jamnal, Adv. + W.P.(C) 11108/2019 BABULAL MEENA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Adv. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Farman Ali, Sr. PC with Ms. Usha Jamnal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 30.01.2025 C.HARI SHANKAR, J. W.P.(C) 10894/2019 [Const. Rambir Singh v. GNCTD] 1. This writ petition assails judgment dated 10 October 2018, W.P.(C) 10894/2019 and connected matter Signature Not Verified Page 1 of 10 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:03.02.2025 12:46:27 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 2910/2013. 2. The OA filed before the Tribunal emanated out of disciplinary proceedings instituted against the petitioner by order dated 26 December 2011, under Rule 16 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. We do not deem it necessary to enter into the allegations in the charge sheet, as the Tribunal has, in our view, proceeded on a fundamentally erroneous understanding of the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings. Paras 11, 13 and 14 of the impugned judgment read thus: “11. The scope of judicial review in the matter of DE proceedings is highly limited. Judicial review is normally resorted to only in following circumstances: (a) Principles of natural justice have not been followed in the conduct of DE proceedings, (b) Incompetent authorities have issued the charge memorandum and passed the penalty orders, (c) The penalty orders have been passed in violation of relevant